To SeriousNewsOnly, Not to be defensive, or ignore the fact that a federal lawsuit over a guinea pig is an easy headline, but there are actually serious issues involved here, for the student, for fair housing advocates, for mental-health advocates and GVSU, which has to devise policies for thousands of students under the framework of state and federal laws. So, it might not fit a definition of “critical issues” of the day, but it's interesting, it's happening here, in federal court in Grand Rapids, involving a Grand Rapids woman who probably doesn’t want to be subjected to the publicity (she declined comment through her attorney), and a university in our neighborhood, and backyard. So, it goes to court, where judges daily resolve disputes. Thanks for reading and writing, John

Her attorney said he's convinced that GVSU is violating Fair Housing Act, and that in similar cases, the law has sided with the person/patient with the support animal. We'll see. I'm adding a little bit more from the lawsuit shortly, while GVSU has declined comment because it's pending litigation. I'll follow this as it goes through court, see what happens.

To vxkitty, no, the report mostly focuses on numbers. It doesn't mention specific incidents (other than Dantzler killings), but lists some of the possible offenses from excessive force to rudeness, and how they're classified and dealt with. thanks, John

To Alicejae: Companies respond quickly all the time. If they can't/won't comment because of pending litigation, that's their call.
The facts were straight: Michael Van Wieren filed a lawsuit making these specific allegations. Whether he can prove the case will be decided in court. I'll report on that. The initial story (not the update, which was the company's response) clearly said company couldn't be reached. Readers knew that when drawing their own conclusions. John

To AliceJae, The company's response to the allegations was put on top of the story yesterday in the link that says, "UPDATE: Company responds to allegations."
The company did not initially respond to my requests Tuesday for comment. I noted in my comments that to be fair, consider that the company has not been served with the suit or given its side. I'll cover this lawsuit like others, and provide information filed by both sides. Thanks, John

The ACLU said Briceno had not previously been deported, but because a parent failed to file necessary paperwork for him, his “federal citizenship records contain prior removal orders issued before his citizenship was formalized,” ACLU attorneys wrote.
Thanks, John

To Rob, good questions, the way I understand it is, the trooper was either provided with (wrong) information from federal agents that Briceno had been previously deported, or that he interpreted the information provided to him that way. ACLU says federal citizenship records are complex, etc, which can lead to misunderstandings. thanks, John

Not to muddy things, but according to the police report, the trooper wrote: "Border Patrol asked that I detain Briceno as he had been deported twice for illegal entry."
Later, the immigration official determined that Briceno was legally here. thanks, John

Like BillSanford said, It's a good idea to keep in mind the lawsuit was just filed. They haven't been served with the lawsuit. I'll follow the case as it goes through the court system. If the company wants to give its side, I'll write that, and I'll watch for their eventual response being filed in court. Thanks, John